Posted
by
samzenpuson Wednesday June 15, 2011 @04:59PM
from the coming-back-to-haunt-you dept.

nonprofiteer writes "The FTC has dropped its investigation of a new company that runs social media background checks and ongoing Internet/social media monitoring of employees, determining its compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

Here's a great laughable tidbit from TFA: they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by creating a standard process for online background checks and a service that presents them with reports on negative material." Actual quote from the company's COO. He's either a complete imbecile, or a monster.

I suppose they do a fairly effective job of flagging companies managed by megalomaniacs and/or morons. If they released their entire client list under the heading "Companies you really, really don't want to work for:", I'd probably cut them some slack.

they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

Although I have no doubt that they have very low standards of ethics - especially as I rather suspect that the only way to see the reports they have on you, like a cr

I think any company that aggregates information about individuals should be required, upon request, to give that person a copy of said information.

I have checked into my own "background" with online "background check" companies, only to find that the information -- the public information, that is, not the stuff they charge for -- is wildly inaccurate. Which is inexcusable, really, considering that my real name is not exactly common. There was some accurate information, but it was years out of date, and i

The illegality for screening against a particular vote or political preference may very well be established. But nobody can deny that e.g. color of skin is also screened against, despite the law leaving no room for interpretation there. More often than not, there's also nothing you can do about it as rarely would an employer say "we're not hiring you because you're X". You just get dismissed with a "we have reviewed your application and we regret to inform you that you did not make the selection process.

You're absolutely [filtered], I couldn't [filtered] more with your statement. It reminds me of the other day when I [redacted, don't want nobody to know this], which goes to prove [filtered] and [filtered] about my boss and the company for which I work. He may be a [filtered] but he always [filtered] and [filtered] and even [filtered] when [filtered] enters the room and says [filtered].

Good god is this what my online conversations are going to become in the name of preserving and protecting my job?

...as long as it complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that its clients let job applicants know when something that turned up in a background check had an adverse effect on their getting employed, or rather not getting employed.

So if they reported to your potential employer that you love cake and that caused your employer to think you'd grab more than one slice during employee functions that contain cake and therefore could not possibly be hired, they will be required to tell you that your cave love is what did you in.

Then I suppose it's up to you and your local Equal Opportunity Office to determine if the employer broke the law, whether those who love cave are a prot

All of which are reasons you will lose you your job thanks to this service. (Of course, they wouldn't openly fire you for being gay, but clever HR knows how to tapdance).

No tap dancing necessary depending on the state. TFA specifically points out that Colorado does not prohibit selective employment based on sexual orientation. Just because what you're doing is legal doesn't necessarily mean that your activities in your private life can't legally be used to refuse you employment or fire you. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just makes it legal.

The 14th Amendment covers actions by the State, not by the individual. It is very specific about this, and mentions "the State" many times as a qualifier. As an individual, you have the right to discriminate all you want. As an employer, there are other laws that cover this, but not the Constitution itself. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power the Government, not the people.

There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.

It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.

A better question would be why would anybody give open access to their photos on something like FB instead of only granting access to their "friends?" It is amazing how much personal stuff people put out in the open on the internet. As an employer I would be more concerned about people's overall lack of discretion than the actual content of most social networking postings. Lack of discretion relates to ones judgment and could be indicative of one's job performance.

"There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article."

You are joking, right? And it just went over my head?

There are plenty of people in the US who hate guns to the point that if they saw a photo of a job applicant online with one or more firearms, they would discount them immediately, just like there are plenty of people in the US who would discount an applicant immediately if they saw a photo online revealing that underneath the lo

Well was the applicant just drinking a beer on a terrace? If so.. hey, great, they know how to enjoy themselves a little.

But what if they were shitfaced, doing shots off some scantily clad young lady clearly much younger than them, in a dark bar with a bunch of other obviously drunk people around them? Now that person is a potential liability.

Similarly, if somebody is a registered firearm owner, part of a (sports) shooting club, etc. Hey, not my cup of tea, but good on them.

This is a truly stupid way to think. You're basically just picking through to choose people who have the same interests and habits as yourself under the assumption that they would be more reasonable than everyone else. I've got news for you, everyone does stupid shit. You can't tell who's going to make a mistake just based on what sort of person they seem to be based on your own myopic world view. I reality, everyone is going to let you down at some time or another. You have to work with people individ

What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

It depends. If you're hiring a high-school teacher, or a cop, or appointing a public official, for example, a picture of the candidate doing a keg-stand could damage their credibility if made public and impair their ability to effectively do their job.

I'm saying that a high-school student may not have the same level of respect for a teacher once they've seen them doing a keg-stand - College pics are one thing, but if your teachers comes in with bloodshot eyes and the students have pictures of him/her in a drunken stupor taken over the weekend, they may not give the same level of respect as they might otherwise. And I'm sure you've noticed how damning those pictures of Weiner have been for him, although it doesn't appear that he broke any laws by sharing

I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?

Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.

Other than the picture sent to a teen, what did Weiner do that was illegal? Nothing. He sent pictures of himself in various states of undress, but that isn't illegal (unless to minors or employees). So, if he were applying for a job at your place of business, such behaviour would not cause you some concern?

If people want to post pictures, that is fine -- give access only to your friends. If you feel a real need to make the pictures available to the whole world, that is fine, too. However, you should be

Employers make a lot of (often invalid) assumptions based around that kind of thing. You know, like that employees will be useless on Monday until 2pm because of the hangovers, etc. Or less severely, maybe it just indicates a poor cultural fit (or a great one - there's no reason these photos can't work in your favor)

The current American mentality is witchhunt first, then never, ever forgive. Felon? Employment-wise, you're hammered. Forever. Sexual *anything* to do with the law? Employment-wise, you're hammered. Forever. Anything that the social retards think isn't Good for the Children? I'm talking drinking, drugging, tattoos, piercings, partying, "planking", nudity of any kind, shooting, marching for any particular cause, flash mobbing, pranking, sexting, imitating the cognitively-impaired people on Jackass, extreme sports... or even being THERE when someone ELSE is doing any of these things... employment-wise, you're hammered.

And if, for some reason, things aren't quite that bad yet, don't worry, they'll very likely pass ex post facto laws to make it so later; just as they already have with guns and the various lists -- do not fly, do not sell to, violent/sexual offender, terrorism. And they'll conflate ridiculous things too - 17-year-old == child == peeing in bush, etc. You can do the most innocuous thing that you think is perfectly ok -- like photograph your cute little infant in the tub -- and end up with your mug shot right next to Victor the Vaginal Butcher, unemployable and forced to move into a box under that bridge downtown you've been throwing your coffee cups over the past few years.

So... you don't appreciate StupidBook becoming a threat to your job and you life and your family? Get out before it happens. Delete everything on your page before you go, and un-friend everyone. It's all you can do. It won't be enough - this is truly becoming a permanent record society that never, ever forgives, criminalizes the ridiculous, and no longer even gives lip service to the ideas of forgiveness or rehabilitation - but it's a start in the right direction.

Also - speaking as a photographer of many years - stop photographing people. Just stop. Nature, old, non-governmental architecture, that's the thing to shoot. Photography is turning into the next minefield. Same thing goes for video, if you're into video. Not just because it might harm you; but because it also might harm them. You might photograph someone in a place they really would prefer others not know they were, for whatever reason... you might catch that funny drunk guy, share the pic, and cause him to lose his job and livelihood and really, really hurt his entire family... or you might shoot that lovely government building you paid for and find yourself answering very hard questions from very hard people about why there is a bottle of bleach under your sink and ammo for your 22 cal. match rifle in your closet, said people showing up right at your job, complete with warrant from their pet oath-breaking judge. Followed immediately by your very own pink slip, because employers are hugely threatened by such events. And now you're unemployable. Welcome to America 2011.

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame Facebook for the irrational behavior of our overlords. But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore. So they'll have to bite the bullet and get real. That would be a good thing in end.

One company I worked for did something similar, arranging a trip to a private rifle range out practically in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, layoffs and a general pay cut were announced the week before.

but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you,

Straights and squares won't be uncomfortable around someone who has pictures of himself on facebook holding a gun or using it in some manner. It's only the nutcases who think pictures of someone holding a gun equate to "a point of public pride", or "confidence and discretion issues" that one needs to worry about.

a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober.

Bullshit.

don't look at a gun hater for this assessment,

Why not? You're the only one I've ever heard say something as stupid as that.

look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment

A responsible gun owner is going to say that a gun is a tool that can be used for good things, and can provi

You didn't say "handguns", I didn't say "rifles". You said "guns", I said "guns". In one place I said 'shooting skeet', which can be done using a handgun or rifle, but is more often done using shotguns, but that was only an example and not an exhaustive list of "guns".

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Yes, and that's why I called what you said "bullshit" when I posted my response. Handguns, rifles, shotguns; your attitude towards the owners thereof is assinine and insulting.

so stop making an argument that doesn't exist, and admit that a guy posing with a handgun on facebook has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about

And it had nothing to do with what you were talking about, until you got slapped down for exhibiting such a closed-minded assinine view of an entire segment of the population you have no clue about and obviously little concern to learn about. THEN you tried changing your rant to "google images with 'thug' and 'handgun' in the title", which got you another slap down, so now you are whinging about something else.

You have no clue about people who own guns or why their pictures might be on facebook, and even

you're changing the subject
i'm talking about a facebook profile with a guy holding a handgun

I'm done feeding the troll. You weren't talking about a facebook profile, you were talking about a google search for images that were tagged with the word "thug" and "handgun". And at first, you were talking about finding a picture of someone holding a gun on facebook.

No, as long as you are grim and sober the entire time and get no pleasure from winning any such competitions, and understand that the straights and squares will be scared of you, you're fine. And make sure you abhore the carnage you create by blowing holes in pieces of paper or shattering clay disks...

First of all, your reactionary argument is incongruous for someone who doubtless considers himself a leftist. Second, the politics of private gun ownership have nothing to do with identity politics [wikipedia.org]. That term is used to describe politics based on one's perceived self-interest as an intrinsic member of a social group. Broadening it to cover ideological groups would render it meaningless, in which case you might as well remove the reference anyway.

people who have a need to pose with a handgun are communicating character weaknesses i don't want to deal with in a job environment

People who have a need to try and build a personality profile (full of diagnosis that only a psychologist who has spent time with the person is qualified to make) of someone they don't know based solely on Facebook photos are doing nothing more than projecting their own biases onto others and then denying that this perception was entirely self-manufactured.

I'm on your side here. I think it's appaling that one has to choose between speaking their mind in public and potentially endangering their economic welfare. But such is the world in which we live.

If you really want people to be free to speak their minds, we need not only the political freedom to do so, but the economic freedom to do so. I don't think this can be accomplished under Capitalism. As long as there is economic inequality there will be political inequality as well.

I would never work for a company that would discriminate based on what I choose to do outside of work hours. However, I am able to realize that not everyone is in as good a position as I am and that my current lifestyle is not just a product of my hard work but also some fortunate circumstance. So I would hate for anyone who needs to get a job to feed their family to be discriminated against based on their outside of work activities. Why should they have less personal freedom than I?

No shit, I couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention I know MANY people that support it (albeit maybe not on FB group), that don't smoke or never have, but aren't necessarily against it. Isn't that what drug tests are for?

"Excrements" is not a word. I believe you're looking for "feces" or "excreta". Or, alternatively, "A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of excrement is to gold."

Wiktionary [wiktionary.org] disagrees...it notes "excrements" as plural to "excrement". Also note..."excrement" can refer to any bodily waste product, so even if one considers "excrement" as a mass noun [wikipedia.org] in most contexts, it still could make sense to say "excrements, like sweat, urine, or feces" (similar to fish vs. fishes [wikipedia.org] as a plural).

Sure there is a lot of people without jobs right now, so if you have no way of distinguishing yourself from them you might be tempted to settle on something you hate doing for someone you hate working for - on the otherhand if you've distinguished yourself you can be quite picky.

If you're in a position where you can't distinguish yourself, then you can further blend in by not posting anything that could be disliked by anyone on your facebook and ensure that all your web comments are 'annonymous' or you coul

Whether it is legal or not is beside the point. If you use Facebookyou are providing info about yourself to a very large number ofpeople you don't know, and ( here is a clue for you ) not all of thesepeople will act in a friendly manner toward you.

There's no real reason to use Facebook, and the smartest people I knowalready know this. If you want to keep up with your friends ( no you don'thave 800 friends ) you use email and the phone. If you want to disse

Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.

Quite astute of you, sir. It was nearly impossible for anyone to have any friends before Facebook was created, and likewise nearly impossible to keep in touch with any of them prior to Mr. Zuckerberg's fine accomplishemt.

And now that Facebook has been created, all previous forms of communications that any of the very very few people who DID have friends have been disabled, effectively preventing anyone who is not on Facebook from having any friends at all.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.

I went back to reread the comment you replied to where you said "that wouldn't work", and I find absolutely nothing about shitting on facebook. I see a suggestion that you avoid facebook and use email or put up your own web page. That is what I assumed you were saying wouldn't work for you because you actually have friends.

Do you really imagine that any friends you might have would abandon you if you were to withdraw from Facebook, or better, never join it? I don' t mean all those people who send friend r

It seems like it would only be fair to collect the names, phone numbers, addressess, friend lists, family info, credit information, and general background info along with as much dirt as possible on all of the employees of Social Intelligence Corporation, starting with managerial/executive level ones. Place a few ads offering to sell said information to anyone who wants it, particularly targeting those who believe they were fired or weren't hired as a result of this SICk company's 'service', et voilà:

This is what happens when people allow anyone to step on their freedoms. Unions are just one, very valid, way of defending your freedoms against people or organizations that have more power than you do individually.

But don't worry about it too much. It's all part of the cycle. The good thing is that this means if we have to deal with the crappy part of the cycle then our children won't, and seriously they deserve something good after having to deal with the legacy we are bound to leave behind.

.. because you leave the door wide open for someone else to create a page using pictures of you to thoroughly trash your reputation. This is the problem with this insane idea: suddenly it is possible for complete strangers to screw up your life proper. A bit like politicians, but without you having any voting rights..